Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 76

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 76

The earlier costs orders had to be set aside and costs determined afresh because the appeal changed the outcome. The Aristocrat parties achieved success on trade mark issues against the Global/Impact parties and on copyright issues against Mr Allam, but their principal copyright case against the Global/Impact parties failed entirely, many pleaded or particularised claims failed or were abandoned, and the relief obtained was limited to declarations and injunctions with no damages. Balancing overall success, overlap between factual issues, failed claims, and the central factual findings against Mr Allam, the just apportionment was that the Aristocrat parties pay 50% of the Global/Impact...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Appeal From Intellectual Property Proceeding / Determined on the Papers After Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Costs orders made by the primary judge on 25 November 2013 set aside and substituted costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['copyright Infringement' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'apportionment of Costs' 'declaratory and Injunctive Relief' 'appeal Costs' 'cross Appeal Costs']
['intellectual Property' 'costs'] ['copyright Infringement' 'trade Mark Infringement' 'apportionment of Costs' 'declaratory and Injunctive Relief' 'appeal Costs' 'cross Appeal Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination in Appeal From Intellectual Property Proceeding / Determined on the Papers After Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who should pay the costs of the proceeding heard and determined by the primary judge, excluding the remittal hearing.' 'Who should pay the costs of the remittal hearing.' 'Who should pay the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.' 'How costs should be apportioned where the Aristocrat parties were only partially successful on trade mark and copyright issues and obtained declaratory and injunctive relief but no damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The earlier costs orders had to be set aside and costs determined afresh because the appeal changed the outcome. The Aristocrat parties achieved success on trade mark issues against the Global/Impact parties and on copyright issues against Mr Allam, but their principal copyright case against the Global/Impact parties failed entirely, many pleaded or particularised claims failed or were abandoned, and the relief obtained was limited to declarations and injunctions with no damages. Balancing overall success, overlap between factual issues, failed claims, and the central factual findings against Mr Allam, the just apportionment was that the Aristocrat parties pay 50% of the Global/Impact...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made by the primary judge on 25 November 2013 set aside and substituted costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['The costs orders made by the primary judge on 25 November 2013 be set-aside.' "The appellants pay 50% of the first, second, third and fifth respondents' costs of the proceeding excluding the costs of the remittal hearing." "The sixth respondent pay 25% of the appellants' costs of the proceeding (including their...